Heterogeneity of a Social Outburst- the #Yosoy132 Movement in Mexico
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
March. 2014. Vol. 3, No.7 ISSN 2307-227X International Journal of Research In Social Sciences © 2013-2014 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved www.ijsk.org/ijrss HETEROGENEITY OF A SOCIAL OUTBURST- THE #YOSOY132 MOVEMENT IN MEXICO Raúl Cabrera Amador, Claudia Salazar Villava1 There has been a substantial transformation in today’s community experience. Fraternal solidarity emerges through ephemeral communities, organized without visible leadership, and lacking any hierarchical structure, but based on virtual communication and characterized by a huge potential for both action and creation of meaning. This is the case of the “yo soy 132” movement in Mexico. We will briefly narrate its story in order to propose a reflection on the heterogeneity of new social outbursts, which are shared life experiences in a world as defying as this one is. On May 11th 2012, Enrique Peña Nieto, who was then the presidential candidate of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI, by its Spanish initials) attended an event at the Iberoamerican University (UIA, by its Spanish initials), an important private university under the management of The Society of Jesus were only the upper and middle classes can study due to the high cost of their tuition. During this event, several groups of young people appeared on the scene carrying signs and posters with messages alluding to and repudiating the violent repression suffered in a village located in the State of Mexico called Atenco on 2006, when Enrique Peña Nieto was the governor of this province. The young protesters were also questioning the poverty, the violence and the detriment of education during his ruling of the State of Mexico. The candidate, who was being critically questioned by these young people, found himself in the need of abandoning the place through one of the back doors. The information about all this was widely spread through social networks before, during, and after the news reached the media. Some representatives of political parties publicly declared that the young protesters that had confronted Peña did not belong to the Iberamerican University, that they had been paid by other political parties, and that they were trained and manipulated by the leftist candidate López Obrador, so they would cause unrest in the event. Faced with such accusations, on May 14th, 131 young students of the Iberamerican University uploaded a video on youtube which was rapidly spread through social media. In this video they identified themselves, one by one, by showing their faces, saying their full names, and exhibiting the ID cards and the registration numbers that proved they were students of that university. They also claimed that they did not belong to any political party or movement, and that nobody had induced them to protest in the way they had done it. From this moment on, the actors of the original protest were not only expressing their point of view, but they were considering themselves as personally injured by the politicians who showed such intolerance to criticism and who despised their rejection of the candidate. By then, some national media were already publishing comments on the unexpected criticism of Peña Nieto coming from economically privileged college students. 1 The authors of this paper are professors and researchers of the Metropolitan Autonomous University, Campus Xochimilco, in Mexico. 26 March. 2014. Vol. 3, No.7 ISSN 2307-227X International Journal of Research In Social Sciences © 2013-2014 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved www.ijsk.org/ijrss The video was rapidly and widely spread, so soon it became a trend topic in both a national and an international scale. Some media showed it on the next day as front page news and an avalanche of comments flooded the newspapers’ web sites. Between May 15th and 16th, the young “Ibero” students who participated in the video used the social networks to denounce they were being threatened. Their complaint went beyond the social networks and reached some newspapers and some radio stations, thus opening different forums where their right to free speech was reappraised. On May 17th, the social networks were used to call people to a demonstration march from UIA to Televisa -a monopolist Mexican TV company- that would take place on the next day to protest in defense of their right to information. They declared themselves to be “nonpartisan and leaderless”. This is the moment when the hashtag #MarchaYoSoy132 first appeared. The calling was a success; it managed to gather around one thousand students from different private universities. They were carrying the ID’s that showed them as members of these university communities, as well as posters that read “#YoSoy132”. They defined their initiative as “peaceful and nonpartisan”. The media considered the event as “unprecedented” because this was indeed an unusual demonstration- the participants were mainly students of private universities. After this moment, the expressions of discontent towards Peña Nieto’s candidacy, as well as the TV companies involved in promoting his image, would grow exponentially. A manifest was made with this starting line- “We are here today, gathered by the shame that affronts us…”. In this document, the movement’s struggle is defined by six points, which are: 1. The democratization and the transformation of the media. 2. A change in the educational, scientific and technologic models. 3. A change in the economic neoliberal model. 4. A change in the national security model. 5. A political transformation towards participatory democracy, with a direct link to social movements. 6. Complete fulfillment of the right to health. The document ends with the following words- “We were silence, we were pain, we were oppression. They wanted to take everything away from us and the only thing we lost was fear. We won’t be a silenced voice anymore. We come here with our bodies shouting: ENOUGH!” Even though, as we have seen, this phenomenon comes from a demonstration of the UIA’s students, its constitution as the #YoSoy132 movement is originated with the incorporation of other private and public universities. What started as a demonstration of about a thousand students from private universities soon grew into a movement with tens of thousands of students from all kinds of educational institutions, as well as other supporting social sectors. In order to face a reflection on the heterogeneity of the actors involved in this phenomenon, we must first consider that the definition of the movement as nonpartisan from its initial stage leads to a potential inclusion of different political tendencies among the movement’s participants; it also leads to its separation from the political institutes participating in the electoral contestation. Immediately after that, when the public universities joined the movement, the wide political and ideological spectrum was made much more evident. There was also an increase in the gathering of different experiences of collective action and student struggle. 27 March. 2014. Vol. 3, No.7 ISSN 2307-227X International Journal of Research In Social Sciences © 2013-2014 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved www.ijsk.org/ijrss From being a small group with little or no experience in collective participation in the public sphere, the #YoSoy132 movement became a space for the militant students who already had a long history of political involvement, and others who rescued the memory of old student organizations and movements that preceded #YoSoy132, which included the participation of academics who joined the initiative through the “YoSoy132Académico assembly. Other kinds of groups and organizations of young people were involved, some examples of these are those who were not necessarily current active students, or alternative young artists, as well as groups that had once participated in the “indignados” camping sites that were established at several places in Mexico City. The identification of the participants as students was the general feature in most cases, but as we have seen this was not necessarily so. Besides, there was also the presence of citizens who answered individually or collectively to the movement’s callings, but who never belonged or participated in an organized way in any particular group. Socioeconomic status also appeared to be more stratified as the movement grew. Even though at the beginning the movement was made up of upper middle class students, which caused great aw because this social sector had been traditionally inactive in matters of public scene and social protests, the presence of public universities dramatically changed this characteristic, which allowed for a greater diversity in terms of social class or socioeconomic strata. This situation inaugurated a series of practically unprecedented collective actions among public and private universities, whose members gathered their resources, capabilities, and experiences; nevertheless, this does not mean that there were not moments in which the different sectors looked at each other with mistrust due to their social class differences. Age ranges were also modified with the incorporation of graduate students and participating academics –some of whom were academics and students at the same time-, although it was always a movement of young people. As their convening power and their legitimacy grew stronger, they began to approach and form alliances with other kinds of organizations, such as unions, community organizations, and NGOs, all of which identified themselves as part of the movement, creating